Abstract
This paper considers the creation of alternative criteria for evaluating journal submissions to the Asian EFL journal taking into consideration the international nature of the journal. While it has always been stated that the Asian EFL Journal (AEJ) has a policy of openness to different styles of writing and to different cultural voices, the huge amount of submissions has led to the perceived need to standardize evaluation criteria. Given the diversity of submissions the need arises to consider whether the strict evaluation criteria laid out in linear fashion do not dictate an inflexible generic review structure to the detriment of promoting different cultural voices linked to (1) the needs of authors who wish to use local varieties of Asian Englishes, (2) the needs of often idiosyncratic voices of expatriates from English speaking countries who would like to share their unique intercultural experiences, (3) the needs of Asian authors who have unique cross-cultural experiences including research, teaching or study in either English-speaking universities or universities outside their own local context, (4) the often diverse expectations regarding written discourse among the reviewers themselves, (5) the intrinsic value of alternative non-standard or non-experimental research and finally (6) the potential practical value of submissions that do not report research.

This paper presents the journal's review criteria and also considers actual editorial reviews of key extracts from submissions. In addition, data collected specifically from questionnaires distributed among the journal’s editors is presented to illustrate the diversity of editorial views towards the review criteria. Conclusions show that various alternative genres of writing submissions have been both positively and negatively evaluated so far in the journal’s history and that editors’ stances towards their roles and responsibilities in reviewing vary enormously. This diversity of findings has led the editorial management team to embark upon a new project to create a review team with the specific objectives of identifying a limited number of alternative submissions for the quarterly issues and for a complete special edition presenting ‘alternative voices’.

Key words: alternative, genre, voice, evaluation criteria

Introduction
In an online interview prior to starting his term as editor of the prestigious TESOL quarterly, Canagarajah (2005) made the following policy comment: “I would like TQ to be more open to atypical form of scholarly rhetoric.” This statement corresponds to a key policy of AEJ, but one which has arguably not been adequately supported in recent years. The rapid increase in submissions has led to a greater standardization of review procedures and a greater potential for texts that do not conform to formal academic research genre to fail a rigorous review process. Canagarajah challenges the dominance of “quantitative, positivistic and experimental lines of inquiry” pointing out that other modes, such as case studies, ethnographies, classroom observations, discourse analyses are equally valid. He suggests that this view is “in recognition of the complex nature of language, learning learning, and language teaching that may be difficult to capture through experimental research”. Canagarajah further suggests that interesting new orientations are developing in many Asian contexts and implies that they often lack academic rigour which makes them difficult to publish. “I must emphasize that TQ cannot feature these areas of work if it does not receive submissions that TQ’s referees will find publishable”. This very same issue has become increasingly an issue in AEJ editing policy, taking into account the original raison d’être of AEJ to provide just such an alternative voice.

   This paper will consider the criteria for evaluating journal submissions to the Asian EFL journal from an international perspective based on our personal experience of editing for the Asian EFL Journal. We do not wish to argue that considering alternative criteria is only of relevance to an international journal, but we do feel that it is particularly relevant to a journal that is representative of a diverse international community.

   While it has always been stated that the Asian EFL Journal has a policy of openness to different styles of writing and to different cultural voices, as the journal has developed the huge amount of submissions have led to the perceived need to standardize evaluation criteria. On the one hand, it might be possible to see AEJ as a cohesive discourse community with its own set of unified norms. However, given the diversity of submissions in terms of geographical origin, educational background and writing experience, one issue that arises is the need to consider whether the strict evaluation criteria laid out in linear fashion do not dictate an inflexible generic review structure to the detriment of promoting different cultural voices linked to (1) the needs of authors who wish to use local varieties of Asian Englishes, (2) the needs of often idiosyncratic voices of expatriates from English speaking countries who would like to share their unique intercultural experiences, (3) the needs of Asian authors who have unique cross-cultural experiences including research, teaching or study in either English-speaking universities or universities outside their own local context, (4) the often diverse expectations regarding written discourse among the reviewers themselves (5) the intrinsic value of alternative non-standard or non-experimental research and finally (6) the potential practical value of submissions that do not report research.

   This paper will present the journal's review criteria and will also consider actual reviews and extracts in relation to reviewers' expectations/norms as expressed in their completed reviews and other data collected specifically for this research project. The study will also be supported by questionnaire findings gathered from the editorial team of Asian EFL Journal. The need to modify the criteria, for certain kinds of submission is finally discussed. It is hoped that the insights gained from this analysis and discussion will find resonance among editors, reviewers, experienced authors and students/teachers who are less experienced or even hoping to publish for the first time.
  
Considering these motivations and foci outlined so far, our research question is specifically:
What alternative criteria can be used to define competence in journal article writing for an international audience, when the paper does not have an experimental quantitative design?

2. Background and literature review
Genre: Definitions
Swales (1990) points out that genre is a “fuzzy concept” which has a "highly attractive … but slippery" way of referring to "a distinctive category of discourse of any type, spoken or written, with or without literary aspirations” (p. 33). Thompson (2004) defines genre "in very simple terms as register plus purpose", register being defined as the use of "certain recognizable configurations of linguistic resources in certain contexts" (p. 42). Halliday and Hasan (1989) divide context according to the three well-known systemic functions as represented in Table 1:

Table 1: Genre and academic context (Based on Halliday & Hasan, 1989, p. 12)

Field   Academic communication	Experiential function	- Language as reflection on the world as it is apprehended and represented through our research or experience - processes, events, actions, states.  (transitivity and ergativity representing the way actors intervene  in academic  processes or reported experience are linked to the  experiential function)
Tenor   Including academic authority,  relationship with audience	Interpersonal function	- Language as social interaction (modality and the expression of confidence in research evidence are linked to the interpersonal function)
Mode   Appropriateness of language choices to academic or professional context.	Textual function	-  Coherence, generic text organization and development, collocation and colligation, lexico-grammatical register  (meta-communication is linked to the textual function)

Swales (1990) provides a detailed general definition of 'genre' as follows:

A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of common purposes. These purposes are recognized by the expert members of the parent discourse community, and thereby constitute the rationale for the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and constrains choice of content and style. Communicative purpose is both a privileged criterion and one that operates to keep the scope of the genre as here conceived narrowly focused on comparable rhetorical action. In addition to purpose, exemplars of genre exhibit various patterns of similarity in terms of structure, style, content and intended audience. If all high probability expectations are realized, the examplar will be viewed as prototypical by the parent discourse community. The genre names inherited and produced by discourse communities and imported by others constitute valuable ethnographic communication, but typically need further validation (p. 58). 

From this detailed definition, five key factors can be identified for academic genres:

(1) Genres are named by or for academic discourse communities.
(2) Genres "share some set of common purposes".
(3) Some control is exercised by "expert members of the parent discourse community" who define and also potentially exert power deciding what these purposes should be.
(4) The rationale that is based on the community's definition of these purposes "shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and constrains choice of content and style."
(5) Examples within genres establish norms and encourage comparison as they "exhibit various patterns of similarity in terms of structure, style, content and intended audience".

   There appears to be no common view as to how broad or how narrow genre classification may be, so in some contexts there might be a further need to classify genres into sub-genres. A 'research article' or a 'research report' is a very broad classification. A 'classroom discourse research article' is more limited and is best referred to as a sub-genre. While suggesting that "content, form, intended audience, medium or channel" also have an influence, Bhatia (1993, p.13) emphasizes the communicative purpose(s) as the primary means of categorizing genres and shaping their internal structure. Bhatia suggests that major changes in communicative purpose tend to lead to the creation of a different 'genre', whereas minor changes are better classified as 'sub-genres'. Referring to the highly structured and conventionalized nature of the communicative events that help define 'genre', Bhatia (1993) points out that training and long-term experience within the "specialist community" help to "shape the genre" and account for the "conventionalized internal structure" (p.14).

   Defining genre according to communicative purpose leads to the conclusion that non-research articles that describe personal (intercultural) pedagogical experience (see for example Gorsuch, 2007 below) or describe applications in context of classroom teaching techniques or approaches are so different in communicative purpose to research-based papers that they may best be classified as a totally different genre rather than as a sub-genre. This implies that the criteria for their evaluation will also need to be different.   

Genre: Freedom, choices and constraints
Bhatia (1993) also elaborates on the notion of "constraints on allowable contributions" arguing that while a specialist may "exploit the rules and conventions of a genre in order to achieve special effects or private intentions, … s/he cannot break away from such constraints completely without being noticeably odd" (p.14). In order to exploit a genre for private purposes while operating with a genre, Bhatia (p.15) emphasizes the need to be highly competent, "an expert member". "Obviously, one needs to be familiar with the conventions of the genre before one can exploit them for special effects."    

   Swales (1990) underlines the central danger of using the concept of 'genre' for discouraging critical thinking by encouraging the "unthinking application of formulas" (p.33). This also tends to undermine the key systemic-linguistic notion that Swales characterizes as the "enlightened and enlightening concept that language is ultimately a matter of "choice".

   In this respect, the importance of 'relevance' in academic writing might be underlined. (See Hunston in Coulthard (1998), Sperber and Wilson, 1995). One feature of relevance theory, is the need to consider what a reader knows or needs to know in order to be optimally relevant. Therefore the purpose of any high-quality academic writing might also be a degree of originality in that optimal relevance implies adding something new to existing knowledge. While taking into account what is known by professionals in the field, some new finding is presented that takes this knowledge forward or challenges some canonical knowledge. A genre might provide a useful framework within which to work but will not dictate either the content or the form of the final product in a deterministically rigid way. Academic audiences include not only researchers, but also teachers, trainers, testers, curriculum developers, materials writers. In EFL many of us need to adopt a combination of all of these roles.

   Carter (1995, pp. 52-59) argues that 'genre' is a controversial topic, in particular in pedagogical contexts. "Holding up certain genres as models to a whole class is seen as rigid and deterministic" (p. 57) and therefore counters pedagogical goals of most writing courses. "A major concern is that genre-based writing practices can be inherently conservative and are designed to produce unreflective writers who will be able to do no more than sustain the genres…" (p.55). This view is linked to what Carter calls "narrow vocationalism" and to a traditional transmission style of teaching. Texts then tend to be used as models that just reproduce the structures in place and which lack the dynamism that is a characteristic of high-quality writing.  

   While 'genre' is a complex term that can become rather deterministic if narrowly defined, it is still a useful concept in relation to competence as it is closely linked to an awareness of the purposes of a particular communicative event. Establishing the purpose of communication is linked to meta-communicational awareness. In pedagogical contexts, an explicit statement of purpose is one way of demonstrating this awareness. The ability to state the purpose of a particular task or assignment, whether implicitly or explicitly, is therefore an important means of establishing competence. Narrow, deterministic definitions of 'genre' however, while they might sometimes appear useful for vocational purposes, might be counterproductive in pedagogical contexts as they encourage conformity, discourage critical thinking and reduce the focus on text experimentation and creation. It will never be difficult for a well-trained writer to adjust or to conform to institutional conventions, but merely training students to reproduce formulaic models will limit their ability to adapt to a variety of potentially unpredictable communicative situations. 

   However, the view that young researchers attempting to publish have or require unlimited choices is also untenable. Genre relates to the organization of complete texts such as the research reports or presentations we might require of students. Citing Couture (1986), Swales (p. 41) distinguishes this from "register" which relates more to the "language of scientific reporting" or the "language of newspaper reporting". The former looks at a kind of generic structure that might be explicitly or implicitly laid down within a discourse community, such as a (1) research article, or (2) a newspaper story:

Title ► authors ► affiliation ► abstract ►introduction ► literature review ► purpose of the study ► method ► results ► discussion ►conclusions ► references ► appendices.

Headline ► summary paragraph ► main-body narrative ► statements from witnesses/ authoritative sources ► author.

The latter might look at the different ways in which aspects of language such as complex noun phrases, transitivity, epistemic modality might be used within the particular genre.

   Genre for Swales emphasizes not only schematic structure within discourse communities in contrast to register but also the purpose and outcomes of independent communicative events. For the research article, Swales (1990, p.134) identifies the hour-glass diagram that divides a research article into just three main sections: Introduction – Procedure – Discussion, as a good starting point for a discussion of generic structure. Swales focuses on the internal structure of the introduction, identifying three key generic components.

AEJ as a discourse community

Flowerdew (2000, p.127) uses the notions of "discourse community" (developed from Swales, 1990) and "legitimate peripheral participation" (p.129) to describe a research writer's relationship with professional peers in terms of learning conventions which are prerequisites for membership. This view of community can easily become rather exclusive.

Flowerdew draws on Swales to identify knowledge of six criteria for membership of "discourse communities":

1. Common goals,
2. participatory mechanisms
3. information exchange
4. community-specific genres
5. highly specialized terminology
6. high general level of expertise.

The notion of "legitimate peripheral participation" evoked by Flowerdew (2000) is less exclusive in that it is legitimate for anyone to participate in the community of practice of a discourse community and "even experienced scholars need to continually negotiate their position as members of the discourse community as that position is ratified by the acceptance of their writing for publication” (p.131). Flowerdew then goes on to discuss the "intellectual dislocation" of graduates leaving their universities which help legitimize them in the communities. AEJ receives many submissions from such returning graduates.

   From an international competence perspective, the notion of discourse communities might provide some useful features that are transferable to international journal editing contexts. International communities may range from temporary communities that form and dissolve in relation to particular events (such as attendance at a conference) to semi-permanent more stable communities that share long-term goals (such as journal participation as a member of the review board). To be called communities we might minimally specify (1) some form of common goal even if the details remain to be negotiated. (2) Some mechanisms of participation specifying things like attendance (whether through physical or online presence – such as skyping other members of the review board). Membership might be relatively unstable involving forming, dissolving, reforming. (3) Some need to exchange information also seems to be a pre-requisite to participate in a community. Importantly for our discussion, (4) some common purposes and norms, while open to negotiation, might also be specified, although the extent to which these become rigidly defined 'genres' and the need suggest alternatives needs careful consideration.

Temporary and evolving generic conventions might be normal. No communities are permanent, but we may assume that the strains on maintaining membership in international communities might be greater and it might be physically easier to stop being a member and more common to feel excluded because an original personal or cultural voice is being expressed. (5) International communities are likely to consider intensive linguistic and pragmatic negotiation as a normal and regular activity. (This does not mean that mono-cultural communities do not also need this, but they might not be aware of communication issues to the same extent). Specialized terminology might be less of a problem in international communities, who may be forming because of some common interest or specialization, but general language and pragmatic norms may need to be negotiated constantly due to very different cultural beliefs, norms and values.  

Voices
“Voice” is defined in this study as a means by which authors express their identity as scholars, accepting that regional, national and individual characters may influence that identity. This may be contrasted with the voice(s) that editors themselves may have in giving feedback. Of particularly interest is how editors perceive their role in giving feedback; in this respect, Rentz’s (2005) investigation into roles and expectations of editors in an international business journal shows clearly how some regard their role as being “hands off” and others “highly invasive” in the revising process with the author to the extent where some editors saw themselves as “collaborators” and “co-producers” (p.290) of studies they were supervising. The difficulties of balancing some expectations as being “gate-keepers” of the journal’s reputation with that of a “mentor” (p.291) were highlighted. What is evident from Rentz’s (2005) study is that, firstly, an editor may, due to these diverse expectations, express multi-voices in giving feedback to an author; secondly, there are “interpersonal and intellectual dimensions to the collaborative work between authors and editorial teams” (p.291). Perhaps, the interaction/interface between the two parts of their respective voices should be added to that sense of collaboration.

Asian EFL journal evaluation criteria
The criteria for evaluating the genre labeled as research papers can appear to be geared towards an extremely deterministic structure and need to be handled with subtlety and flexibility in relation to particular manuscripts even within the research genre. However, the aim of this paper is not to challenge the need to review quantitative research papers rigorously or to change radically our policy towards these papers. The issue is more the inapplicability of some of these criteria to alternative genres. Currently the ten associate editors who supervise reviews are not obliged to stick rigidly to one format and editors may also provide feedback in other formats. The basic format being used until recently is outlined in table 3 below.

Table 3
Part A -- Assessment of Basic Criteria
Please indicate your assessment of each of the 10 criteria by placing an "X" in the appropriate column. Please enter comments specific to particular criterion in the comments row below each criterion.

Another version of the AEJ criteria below (developed from the previous version by Associate Editor, Dr. Reima Al-Jarf) provides a comprehensive alternative checklist for authors of quantitative research papers.

Table 4 : Part A. Asian EFL journal manuscript evaluation instructions
see pdf

Even for experimental research papers, it is important for the associate editor to ascertain the relevance of all the criteria to particular papers and to decide which criteria are the most important in each case. The issue under discussion in this paper is not so much that these criteria are inappropriate or even that the format is inappropriate. It is rather the applicability of all the criteria to all manuscripts and the need to consider alternative criteria for different kinds of paper. The following criteria were developed for non-research papers.

Table 5 Part A: Assessment of basic criteria – Non-research articles

see pdf

3. Methodology
The very simple non-experimental methodology employed in this pilot study involved (1) the distribution of a questionnaire among editors and (2) the selection of articles or extracts published in AEJ that embody the criteria we have identified.
3.1. The questionnaire
The themes addressed in the questionnaire concern evaluation priorities, sensitivities in reviewing, dilemmas, language and content, rejection criteria, and the international nature of the journal. Questions are mostly open-ended and space is given at the end to expand upon any further issues the editors wish to mention.

Table 6: The questionnaire
1. Without referring to the official evaluation form, what are the three most important
    criteria you like to use to evaluate the quality of a paper?

2. What is the most sensitive aspect of reviewing for you personally?

3. Can you describe a specific example of a dilemma you have faced when evaluating
    a paper?

4. Explain the importance you give to language in evaluating a paper.

5. When evaluating a paper, which do you focus on as a priority, content or language?
    Why?

6. Complete the following: 
  A paper should always be rejected if:

 A paper should never be rejected if:

7. Does the international nature of the journal create any sensitive review issues for you?

8. Please feel free to add any other comments about important issues that have not been covered in our questions.

Analysis of the questionnaire responses
14 completed questionnaires were received, representing around 40% of the journal editors at the time, and were analyzed as follows:
1. Responses for each of the 9 questions were gathered and then reduced in terms of their relevance to the question. Care was taken at this stage not to totally eliminate any responses which, although irrelevant to a specific question, could be nevertheless integrated into another question’s responses.
2. Responses for each question were then broken down quantitatively into ‘most common’ to ‘least common’ themes. Themes only mentioned once were also noted. A theme was identified according to two criteria: the use of the same or similar words; or the emergence of similar sentiment or feelings. All findings can be seen in Appendix 1.

4. Results & synthesis of relevant findings

4.1 Summaries of the questionnaire findings

The findings are organized into two groups: the first shows responses which address the issue of ‘alternative’ voices; the second (see Appendix 1) gives an overall quantitative picture of the responses gathered.

Alternative voices
Looking across the 9 questions, the following responses addressed the idea of ‘alternative’ voices in various degrees:

Some responses indicated that originality of the topic/paper and forging “a new direction” were criteria which were important. This could potentially embrace ‘alternative’ voices both in terms of language and content.

Specifically addressing the issues of whether content or language were a priority, most respondents regarded ‘content’ as a priority, but some stated that both content and language are important. 

Those who regarded language as important, stated that:

• following an academic writing style was necessary, considering that the journal is

language-related;

• the language should be clear and easy to understand;
• “poor language can influence a reviewer’s judgment”. 

The general view from these responses suggests that ‘academic’ language is essential but that it should be easy to understand. What constitutes ‘poor’ or ‘academic’ language is, however, open to question.

Some responses stressed the variety of contexts within Asia:
One respondent commented that the South-East Asia ELT context may be unfamiliar to the Far East Asia context and vice versa:

• “Different countries emphasize different directions in English research”. Specific contexts in Asia need to be understood in terms of the writer’s own national or regional context.

These responses are perhaps a subtle implication of the necessity to recognize variety in content, as well, perhaps as in writing style.

Interesting responses which indicated negative experiences in reviewing were as follows:

• A paper should not be rejected if there is a “passion” to make a contribution to the field “rather than a condescension towards Asian students and teachers.”

Finally, addressing the issue of ‘alternative’ voices can be seen from a non-nationality background. In this respect, two responses clearly looked at qualifications and experience in research as factors:

• “Encouraging MA students to publish may be setting them up for disappointment”.
• The journal’s “positioning” in the field needs to be considered: as a mentor to newly emerging researchers, or as an international leader in the field.

These last responses show the emergence of an issue of whose voices represent valid contributions to the field, those of new researchers or those more experienced in the field.

4.2 Extracts from evaluated manuscripts
The following extract illustrates how the ‘voice’ of an author can differ in a manner which is often seen as unacceptable in a review process. The need to communicate is strongly communicated, the issue raised is valid, but the manner of expressing it does not conform to an accepted academic register.

The Post Graduate Teaching Dilemma and Its Remedy

Bunking classes, getting bored, being absent minded, running after notes desperately, and appeasing teachers/examiners, have been the typical features of post graduate students whereas lecturing, having a monologue, exercising utmost authority in their classes and adopting assumptive approach about teaching and learning reflect upon the kind of role teachers have been playing at this level. Does this scenario ascertain the specialized or higher education? Does this provide experts in various fields of knowledge? Does this show we are progressing? Given a right to express myself freely, I would definitely say, “No”. This may sound rude but unfortunately this is what the dilemma is. Since post graduate studies aim at producing skilled, knowledgeable and expert graduates who are ready to step in their professional life to add to the progress of their society and their country at large, I apprehend that the lot we are producing for this purpose is lacking in many respects. It’s not one person’s responsibility rather a whole network of teachers, students, curriculum designers, policy makers, implementation bodies is involved.

Other voices, that have been successfully published by AEJ, are able to combine rigour with an original voice. The following extract from Reinders (2006 – thesis section) illustrates this alternative approach to knowledge creation that embodies a challenge to established genre/register conventions. Non-conventional language in relation to transitivity is italicized to emphasize the code-switching interplay between conventional and non-conventional rhetoric. An important feature of this approach is meta-communicative awareness.

Successful alternative
In our view, Reinder’s (2006 [PhD thesis]) is not only an interesting study in itself. It also successfully illustrates how an original voice can enhance an academic study. One of my personal favourite extracts from my own reviewing in 2006 comes from Reinders meta-comment on acknowledgements and in particular his skill in breaking the mould. An important feature of this approach is meta-communicative awareness and deliberate flouting of a norm rather than just violating the norm.

Extract 1 (meta-communicative awareness)

Acknowledgements can be a bit boring. Mostly it’s the usual suspects: family, friends, children, one’s pet goldfish. I have yet to come across one that says ‘Thanks to MYSELF for being such a great person and hard worker’. Probably that is because PhD theses are not created in isolation. And even if one did do all the work by yourself, somewhere, somehow, the thing needs to relate to someone to have any value at all. My list of acknowledgements could be as long as this thesis. I would have never had the qualifications to embark on a PhD study, nor been at this particular University, and certainly not been able to complete my thesis, without the help of many good souls Thank you, dear reader, for giving this thesis its meaning.

Reinders (2006) commences the PhD thesis as follows:

Extract 2 Code switching and Formality
 
This research stems in large part from my own interest in a phenomenon that I have observed over many years of my own and others’ language study. Why was it that under very similar circumstances (same language class, same teacher, same amount of tuition, even similar motivation/goals) some learners succeed and others do not? I have experienced this in secondary school French classes in Holland, in Arabic classes at universities in Cairo and Damascus, in Hebrew classes in Jerusalem, and in many other settings. As for myself, I knew it could not (only) have to do with the ‘hard wiring’ of the language learning system; I have always been poor at memorising vocabulary and even poorer at hearing differences in pronunciation, yet I have often been relatively successful at mastering languages. My own instinct told me it had to have something to do with what I used to call ‘focus’. Now I would probably call this attention, although I still like the term focus as it is something that would be present (or absent) in a more general sense rather than being related to a particular task or situation. A friend once referred to this as ‘having your radar on’ (which sounds a lot like Tomlin & Villa’s “alertness”; 1994). Students who keep their eyes and ears open at all times for the new language, who constantly try to monitor others’ and their own speech, and who actively hypothesise about the language as they go along, are the ones who do best. My studies in applied linguistics led me to the field of autonomy and self-directed language learning which further confirmed me in my thinking. However, in these areas it is not always clear what is meant when it is said that successful learners are “more proactive” or more “independent”. I decided that to investigate more deeply what affects learning at this level, I had to turn my attention to, well, attention.

Much research has been done investigating the role of attention in second language learning (cf. Robinson, 1996; Schmidt, 1990, 1994, 2001). Although there continue to be some fierce debates, it appears that there is a consensus that more attention leads to increased learning. One way to investigate attention is by looking at intake; the intermediate stage between input and acquisition. If learners take in information, it has to have been attended to. But if information has been attended to, is it learned? What factors affect this? How can learners’ attention be increased, and can it be directed towards specific features in the language? It is these and other questions that prompted me to design the present study.

In this extract we can identify a kind of code-switching between more standard academic style and the first-person voice of the author (marked in italics). In the same extract, formal academic statements, such as “Much research has been done investigating the role of attention in second language learning (cf. Robinson, 1996; Schmidt, 1990, 1994, 2001)”, are juxtaposed with informal first person statements, such as “I decided that to investigate more deeply what affects learning at this level, I had to turn my attention to, well, attention.” At the same time this extract has the purpose of establishing the relevance of the topic to real life language use.

A further example of an unconventional voice can be seen in Gorsuch (2007), a narrative-style paper published in the March edition of Asian EFL Journal. By means of personalizing the study (the use of the first person pronoun, as well as personal experiences) with empirical data, Gorsuch manages to balance conventional academic expectations for research rigor with her own voice effectively. Two short extracts illustrate the narrative style used by Gorsuch.

Extract 3 Narrating personal intercultural experience
Learning where I would be sent did not necessarily answer the question of what I would teach. I was the first Fulbright person to be sent to Vinh University, although the university had been hosting volunteer native English speaking teachers sent by a Christian organization for several years. While I had lived in the Philippines and Japan, and had taught for many years in Japan, I had never visited Vietnam, nor had I met many Vietnamese English language learners.

Great ideas about courses in which language learners exchange videotaped diaries will not go far in a context where video technologies are not available, the students are complete beginners who do not feel the need to talk, the school is accustomed to book-based language practice, and the colleagues believe teacher-to-whole class instruction is most suitable. While many teachers develop courses at an informal level without much preparation (as when they are assigned to teach a course new to them, or they change jobs), most language educators would hesitate to formally develop a full blown course with no knowledge of the students or institution. Developing goals, objectives, lesson plans, and materials is time consuming, and what if all of it is wrong for the learners, the facilities, the institution?

Sivasubramaniam (2006) provides a further example of an alternative voice that was published recently in AEJ. Sivasubramaniam interestingly feels the need to defend his alternative approach in the following meta-communicative comment which challenges the exclusivity of rationalist approaches to inquiry into language learning.  In this way, he both provides an alternative voice and defends the right or even the need to be able to do so.

Extract 4 Advocating or defending a minority interest group
The views examined so far, should be interpreted as intuitive beliefs and values that support our intuitions and belief systems underlying pedagogies of experience and response. Therefore, it is not necessary to affirm these views as outcomes of rationalistic inquiries just for the sake of labeling them as ‘objective’. As pointed out earlier, what is touted as ‘objective’ in language learning research has harmed our educational and social practices. Therefore, it is argued that theoretical possibilities indicating suggestive ways of using literature should remain subjective, as literature is not an objective field of inquiry. Furthermore, as asserted by Eagleton (1983, p. 14), ‘the claim that knowledge should be value-free is itself a value judgment’. Such an assertion not only points out the naivety of researchers who relate language learning to scientific research paradigms but also alerts us to the futility of objectifying and reifying literature in language learning research (Polkinghorne (1988, p. x). It is then argued that the views in question will be used to support this paper, which is meant to examine the benefits of using literature in foreign language education indicatively, discursively and impressionistically.

Rejected Extracts
Two examples of potentially ‘alternative’ voices were rejected on various grounds, including over-personalized language which was considered as inappropriate by both Native Speaker and Non-Native speaker reviewers. The first case shows a submission from a native Chinese writer which was considered “well written” by one Native Speaker reviewer, and as “not appropriate” by another.

Extract 6 Informality without establishing meta-communicative awareness
I have used spoken English in my work for more than 16 years, and in Thailand, I taught Oral English Practice to university students for more than 6 years. I hope I can give quality instruction helping my students to simultaneously acquire better English accents and fluency. But for this to occur, students need to talk. Without students’ oral participation, none of the course objectives could be realized. I tried my best to teach providing a lot of materials and topics for discussion hoping students would talk for 5 minutes. I believed five minutes was adequate time for my students to express themselves well, but my efforts were not rewarding. Most of the students could only speak for less than 1 minute expressing that they felt they did not know what to say.  Even after one semester, students’ participation in oral discussion and oral presentation was low. Whenever I asked them to say something about one topic, they, for the most part, would say, “How should I say it? What should I say?” and they would ask these questions in their native Thai. I was determined to improve my students’ speaking ability and tried various techniques in order to do so. But the results were not ideal.  At that time I thought maybe the teaching materials were not relevant to them, thus they did not want to say anything or could only say a little.

Review comments (NS): Well written paper. It is very easy to follow the author’s argument and s/he uses a very personal tone. Major revisions requested based on methodological grounds.

Review comments (NS): The style of writing is not appropriate for an academic article. Reject based on language.
 
The second example comes from a submission from India in which a Non-native speaker reviewer rejected the paper on the grounds of both content and language, the latter of which had no grammatical errors but was written in a narrative style.

Extract 7 Informal narrative style
I personally refuse to endorse any of these extreme positions. As a teacher of English I feel that the scheme is going to have one major benefit: Introduction to and progressive acquisition of the sounds of English. I believe that when these children will grow up they will handle English with much greater ease than their counterparts who started learning English at std. V.

Review comments (NNS): Overpersonalised (I personally refuse, I feel that, I believe) yet perfect grammar. Rejected on weak argument and language.

Establishing alternative criteria
This paper has discussed the risks of excluding alternative voices as a result of narrow deterministic applications of inappropriate review criteria that do not adequately consider the purpose of the paper under review. This brief discussion has considered two areas for consideration. It has considered the nature of possible alternative behaviours within the academic genre. Secondly it has considered some general criteria of “good” writing.

	Successful	Unsuccessful? (Here this simply means failed the review.)
Metacommunicative Genre awareness Flouting norms rather than violating them.	Extracts 1 and 2 Reinders	Extract 6 (Doesn’t establish awareness. Is it violation or flouting?)
Narrating valuable (intercultural) experience	Extract 3 Gorsuch	Informal narrative style. Inadequate support for the statement?
Advocating or defending a minority interest group	Extract 4 Sivarkuma
Creativity/ originality or fostering creativity	See Al Jarf, 2007

It is important not to neglect some more general criteria that can be applied to all styles of academic writing. Criteria such as coherence organization and development of argumentation can be applied to any academic text as can criteria such as relevance and applicability to scholars and fellow professionals, and appropriate use of referencing. Quality of argumentation is also a generally applicable criterion. However, the way arguments are presented and supported and in particular, the quality of evidence provided in support of statements, is not limited to experimental research design. Examples and extracts from qualitative data, sound (philosophical) argumentation, extracts from recorded classroom discourse, examples of teaching materials or students’ work are just some of the many alternative ways of supporting arguments that attempt to develop usable knowledge in the field.      

5. Conclusions
We would like to reassure our highly valued review editors of an empirical persuasion that we have not attempted to devalue or denigrate rigorous empirical investigations. We have, however, attempted to illustrate how alternative non-conventional voices can be successful, powerful, relevant and useful to practitioners.
The normative power of academic discourse communities, including the one we help to organize as senior editors, can be underestimated in its power to suppress alternative voices. We would therefore like to use our potentially gate-keeping positions to establish a policy and to consider and develop a set of general criteria to provide more support for alternative, less rigorously formal, academic voices. This has included a separate team of editors specializing in this area from June 2007. This will be supervised by the authors of this paper and will be developed as a research area with a view to publishing quality examples in the quarterly issues on a regular basis and in separate collections of alternative voices published at regular intervals.

References
Al-Jarf, R. (2007). Online instruction and creative writing by Saudi EFL freshman students. Asian EFL Journal, Teaching Articles, 22.

Bhatia, V. (1993). Analysing genre language use in professional settings. London:  Longman.

Carter, R. (1995). Keywords in language and literacy. London: Routledge.

Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and    the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127-150.

Gorsuch, G. J. (2007). Developing “The Course” for college level English as a    foreign language learners and faculty members in Vietnam. Asian EFL Journal,
    9(1), 195–226. Retrieved 31st March, 2007 from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_07_gg.php

Halliday, M. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in     a social semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hunsten, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in academic discourse. In    M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 191- 218). London: Routledge.

Reinders, H. (2006). The effects of different task types on L2 learners' intake and     acquisition of two grammatical structures University of Auckland, 2005, Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics. Asian EFL Journal, Thesis Section. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/thesis_Hayo_Reinders.pdf

Rentz, K. (2005). Making knowledge in business communication. Journal of    Business Communication, 42(3), 289–294.

Sivasubramaniam, S. (2006). Promoting the prevalence of literature in the practice of     foreign and second language education: Issues and insights. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4), 254–273. Retrieved July 20 2007 from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/December_2006_EBook.pdf

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings     Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.

Appendix 1: Questionnaire findings
1. Without referring to the official evaluation form, what are the three most important criteria you like to use to evaluate the quality of a paper?
a. Originality of the topic/paper and forging “a new direction”
b. Appropriate research methodology, relevant literature review and Implications for ELT practice and other Asian contexts
c. Following an academic writing style, acknowledging the limitations of the research, writing in an easy to read style.
Also mentioned criteria were:
The organization of the paper, and following the APA style.
2. What is the most sensitive aspect of reviewing for you personally?
Most common responses were:
a. Concerning feedback: Giving diplomatic and constructive feedback; giving “totally objective” and unbiased feedback
b. The necessity to provide more context for the study & issues related to specific cultures and politics of the area. (One respondent commented that the South-Eastern ELT context may be unfamiliar to the Far Eastern context and vice versa)
c. The difficulty in rejecting a paper.
Less common responses were:
a. Guessing who the author is and the discomfort of reviewing a paper by a colleague despite being sent a blind paper to review.
b. Dealing with papers in which “theories I disagree with” are put forward.

3. Can you describe a specific example of a dilemma you have faced when evaluating a paper?
Common responses were:
a. When the topic is well-written and interesting but not relevant to the journal/EFL/ESL.
b. When the topic is interesting but its treatment poor.
c. Guessing/knowing the author.
How to reject a paper.
Less common responses were:
a. When the paper is outside the expertise of the reviewer.
b. When a paper is clearly written by a native speaker very confidently, but the non-native reviewer needs to give feedback on weaknesses in content.
4. Explain the importance you give to language in evaluating a paper.
Common responses were in two groups, the first placing ‘language’ as an important or primary factor in evaluating a paper:
a. The language should be clear and easy to understand
b. Language is important or a priority, considering that the journal is language-related
c. Academic language use is most important
The second, smaller group considered ‘content’ of the paper more important than ‘language’:
Less common responses were:
a. That academic style was part of the ‘content’ of the paper.
b. A dislike of proofreading papers.
5. When evaluating a paper, which do you focus on as a priority, content or language? Why?
Most respondents regarded ‘content’ as a priority, but some stated that both content and language are important.
One respondent chose ‘content’ as a priority but mentioned that “poor language can influence a reviewer’s judgement”.

6. Complete the following:
A paper should always be rejected if…
a. The research methodology is weak.
b. There is plagiarism.
c. The literature review is weak.
Other responses were:
a. The topic is irrelevant to EFL/ESL
b. The paper is badly organized
c. There are no practical implications for the classroom or no solution to the problem is stated.
d. There is a lack of reflection on the weaknesses/limitations of the study.
7. A paper should never be rejected if…
Most common responses were:
a. It makes a contribution to understanding language learning in the EFL/ESL field in the Asian context or better teaching. (one respondent saying that a paper should not be rejected if there is a “passion” to make a contribution to the field “rather than a condescension towards Asian students and teachers”.)
b. It is well-organized/original/meets all publication criteria.
c. The research methodology is sound.
Less common responses were:
a. A paper should not be rejected if it only contains minor language or structural mistakes.
b. There are good prospects for improvement in the revising stage.
8. Does the international nature of the journal create any sensitive review issues for you?
The overwhelming response was ‘no’.
Some comments were:
a. “Different countries emphasize different directions in English research”.
b. “Paying specific attention to even ethnic and cultural diversities in an article might shed light on a particular case”.
c. Specific contexts in Asia need to be understood in terms of the writer’s own national or regional context.
9. Please feel free to add any other comments about important issues that have not been covered in our questions.
Some comments were:
a. “Encouraging MA students to publish may be setting them up for disappointment”.
b. The journal’s “positioning” in the field needs to be considered: as a mentor to newly emerging researchers, or as an international leader in the field.
c. One evaluation criteria (“situating the study “within a theoretical framework”) should be extended to situating the study “among other comparable studies”.
d. Statistics on how many papers are accepted or rejected could be sent out to reviewers to help them understand the rejection/acceptance rates and their own strictness of reviewing.
e. A “scale” could be introduced for review outcomes from Accept to Reject.

One reviewer cast doubt on the quality of the journal reviewers’ “caliber”, and also on the knowledge base of research methodology of 75% to 80% of all papers received.
It was also suggested that this survey could include the reviewers of other journals.